I'm not entirely sure that a random user of an online site qualifies as an employee of any site, so I don't think that *workplace* sexual harassment laws have anything to do with this case. After all the commotion lately with MySpace, it seems quite real that these situations do have some sort of legal backing under some sort of sexual harassment statute, although IANAL. In many of these cases, it is just safer to report the case, and if the police asks for anything, just provide them access to the Apache and Recent Changes logs. Titoxd. -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey V. Merkey Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 1:29 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual harassment in Wikipedia THD wrote: I In the United States, sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment claims require that: 1. The company/organization have more than 15 employees or its exempt from compliance with Federal EEOC Laws. 2. The subject of the harassment must be an employee who reports to the person doing the harassment. 3. Any employee, irregardless of reporting structure can make claims of sexually hostile work environment, but the damages are a lot less. 4. Damages are statutory for sexual harassment claims. An online forum cannot make claims of sexual harassment or enforce such claims. If anything, its a violation of site policy and may qualify as stalking or obscenity, but its not sexual harassment under US Law. Jeff _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote: Providing this data should only be done in response to a court order. Mere police investigation is not enough. There are many more situations where a person has legitimate reasons for remaining anonymous. This might seem like very obvious circumstances for providing information, but there are other activities where we diverge significantly about the legality of the activity, and it is not our place to start making judgements about legality. Civil rights and free speech are important, and if it means having to tolerate occasional idiotic speech that's a very small price to pay. Ec

Jimmy Wales wrote: There's a difference too between sexual harassment and threats of violence. Telling a female Wikipedian, "A bitch like you belongs in the kitchen, not on ArbCom," may be fairly interpreted as sexual harassment, but it does not carry a threat of violence. We can deal with that idiot through our own internal processes. Credible threats of violence do raise the issue to a higher level. We were certainly right to act when the kid in Connecticut was threatening suicide. At the other end of the scale Canadian courts have consistently refused to force the release of such information when the recording industry was saying that they needed to know who was sharing music files. We can delete what we suspect to be copyvios, but it would be over-the-top to tell the copyright owner about it every time it happened unless he had demanded that action in the first place In this example we also want to make sure we aren't sending them on a fool's errand in an imaginary Springfield. ;-) Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is capable of exercising it. We have a lot of people who can too easily jump to conclusions. Ec

see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy "6 Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." plese help! 2006/11/11, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: -- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com CNBlog: http://blog.cnblog.org/weblog.html Social Brain: http://www.socialbrain.org/default.asp cnbloggercon: http://www.cnbloggercon.org/ [[zh:User:Shizhao]]

roc wrote: <snip> From http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy <snip> Regards, -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

roc wrote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy I believe that the They should not... except that it is little practical. Imagine that a checkuser checks the ip data of a vandal, then blocks the whole ip range in order to block the person. Or makes correlation with a vandal acting under ip... then, it is pretty easy to "guess" what the ip or ip range for the person is. In such case, release will occur somehow. Many checks done to protect the project itself (pure vandalism, sockpuppetry) will often reveal the ip. However, if the check is done for investigation reasons (request by the police, by a government etc...), rather than to immediately protect the site from a raw attack, yeah, it would be very shocking that a checkuser reveals the information. To that date, I do not think it ever occured. In this case, if a request was made to find out the ip of the user who issued the threats, I think the request should be made to the board/executive. But *mostly*, the request should be done either by a very trusted user, or more likely by a group of trusted editors. If a totally unknown person mentions threats have been issued in a language we can not understand, and request to know the ip of another editor, I'd say the request should not be fullfilled. Ant

I think that is what both Jimbo and I said... What the privacy policy states (the way I read it) is that Checkusers are allowed to release IP information when one of the conditions for release (e.g. abuse of resources, or in this case, threats against a community member) are met, and there is no better alternative than to release them immediately. For example, a Checkuser in the English Wikipedia is allowed to release the IP of a vandal who is creating a plethora of accounts with the sole intent of vandalizing the site; in fact, every time a Checkuser blocks a vandal IP based on Checkuser information, the IP is released into the block log. I cannot imagine a scenario in which a police officer approaches a user with the appropriate privileges, identifies himself satisfactorily, and makes it clear beyond any doubt that the information is going to be used in a rape/stalking/solicitation investigation, and is refused the information he needs. Of course, it may be appropriate to "kick him upstairs" to the Florida office as soon as possible, if the situation is not as urgent. Titoxd. -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of roc Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:20 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual harassment in Wikipedia By "sexual harassment", THD was trying to explain the online harassment/stalking/solicitation accident in which a female user at Chinese Wikipedia was threaten to be raped. It does not mean the kind of sexual harassment in a working environment. In addition to THD's description, the victim's real life name was used in the threat; this name has never been disclosed by the victim on Wikipedia. We respect the freedom of speech and other civil rights, but we are not obligated to provide a place for any speech or act, especially when such an act seriously violates other people's civil rights or safety. I totally agree with Gregory that we protect the visitor/user's privacy because of our high ethical values and the furthering of interests of both the WMF and the public. We are not going to protect everyone's privacy at all times, especially when it is *necessary* to protect our values or interests or safety. Indeed, in Wikipedia's privacy policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy, link found at bottom of every page on Wikipedia), there are several circumstances that allow the release of IP information: 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement. ... 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. I believe that tolerating such a personal violence threat (using the word "rape" and the victim's undisclosed real-life name) would be a neglect to the safety of our users and the health of our community, which is essential to Wikimedia's success and missions. Regarding policies and procedures, I think that WMF should either dictate privacy policies of all its projects or give authorizations to the community/people it trusts, as long as it conforms with the best interests of WMF, the project, and the public. I believe that the privacy policy of Chinese Wikipedia is governed by the WMF. In this privacy policy, it is stated that "personally identifiable data...may be released by...users with CheckUser access", does it mean that checkusers/stewards are authorized to release IP information of a registered user without seeking approval for each case from the Board or Executive? Best regards, roc -- 2006/11/13, shi zhao &lt;shizhao(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller wrote: I can't address the technical requirements for someone with checkuser capacity, but technical competence is only one side of the coin. Good judgement, trust and common sense are just as important. The ideal checkuser is effective in both respects. Rule making on the wiki tends to be chaotic at best, to the point where the best way to develop a rule can be to make a rule and hope that nobody notices. No-one can keep up with the process, or be certain of the circumstances when a rule was adopted. Proposing changes can be an intimidating process. I would llike to propose a Rules Committee on the following bases. 1. Except for minor editorial changes the rules committee would not adopt the rules. It could propose new rules, amendments, rule reviews, or repeals, but the actual adoption would be by the community affected. It could develop a rational codification of the rules. 2. The rule committee would be primarily a foundation level committee, but could draft rules for any single project or group of projects. 3. Although membership at this stage would be relatively open, no person should be a member of the Rules Committee and any Arbitration Committee at the same time. This parallels the separation of the legislative and judicial arms of governments. While rule makers must be in a position to look at rules in broad terms, arbitrators must be concerned with applying existing rules to specific circumstances. 4. In order to be effective the number of members on the rules committee would need to be limited, and equitable means of adding or replacing members would need to be developed. 5. Where applicable the rules committee would need to work closely with the Translation Committee when a rule must be applied across multiple languages. 6. Among the higher priorities for the Rule Committee would be * Developing the distinction between Foundation, policy that needs to be consistent between projects of the same type, policy that needs to be consistent between projects in the same language, and policy which each project may develop separately. * Developing a consistent policy on policy adoption. * Developing consistent formats for policies. 7. Existing policies would be grandfathered until reviewed, replaced and readopted. Initially, this committee would want a closed mailing list, and a number of volunteers to see if this experiment is workable. Any thoughts out there?. Ec

On 16/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Proposal: a Rules Elimination Committee. They can only remove rules, not put through new ones. - d.

On 11/17/06, cohesion &lt;cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org&gt; wrote: We do have a process for creating new rules. Idon't think anyone has ever followed it though. -- geni

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: Well if you really think that openness should not apply, I could choose all the members to make sure that I have a cabal that's willing to be compliant with my vision of the rules. :-) Ec

Gregory Maxwell wrote: I don't think that that is a place where such a rule would help. We don't really disagree. It's all a matter of perspective. The primary rule should remain that we respect the privacy and anonymity of the user. Anything that deviates from that is an exception. Exceptions should be very specific. Rules should derive from ethics, but the two are not the same thing. Those with thin skins just don't last lang. Ec